Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

While Bush Announces 8,000 Troop Withdrawal, Leaked Draft Agreement Calls for Indefinite Occupation

By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!. Posted September 11, 2008.


Iraqi Blogger Raed Jarrar: The U.S./Iraq agreement legitimizes long term bases and calls for an indefinite number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Amy Goodman: President Bush announced Tuesday he would withdraw 8,000 troops from Iraq by February. He also called for a, quote, "quiet surge" in the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The President outlined his plan in a speech at the Naval War College.

President George W. Bush: [General Petraeus has] just completed a review of the situation in Iraq, and he and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have recommended that we move forward with additional force reductions. And I agree. Over the next several months, we will bring home about 3,400 combat support forces, including aviation personnel, explosive ordinance teams, combat and construction engineers, military police and logistical support forces. By November, we'll bring home a Marine battalion that is now serving in Anbar province. And in February of 2009, another Army combat brigade will come home. This amounts to about 8,000 additional American troops returning home without replacement.

AG: Democratic presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama, criticized President Bush for keeping troop levels in Iraq largely unchanged. Speaking in Ohio on Tuesday, Obama said, "In the absence of the timetable to remove our combat brigades we will continue to give Iraq's leaders a blank check instead of pressing them to reconcile their differences."

But neither Senator Obama nor President Bush made reference to a recently leaked draft of an Iraqi-U.S. agreement that outlines the long-term status of U.S. forces in Iraq. Iraqi blogger and political analyst Raed Jarrar has read and translated the leaked document. He says the agreement doesn't set a deadline for the withdrawal of non-combat U.S. troops in Iraq. He joins us also from Washington, D.C.

Welcome, Raed. Talk about what you have found, what this leaked document says that you've translated.

Raed Jarrar: Well, it's a long document. It has twenty-seven articles. And most of them are outrageous. They give the U.S. unprecedented authorities and rights and immunities. Maybe a major point that is related to this discussion is the fact that the agreement legitimizes or legalizes these long-term bases, that indefinite number of U.S. troops will stay there.

Now, this is a huge issue that is not being discussed in the U.S. enough. We usually get stuck in discussing troops level, how many troops are the U.S. going to keep in Iraq, or what's the mission of these troops. But from an Iraqi point of view, the majority of Iraqis and the majority of Iraqi parliamentarians and other representatives of the Iraqi community are demanding a complete withdrawal that leaves no permanent bases, no troops and no private contractors. And unfortunately, from this side, from the U.S. side, both of the ruling parties and both of the mainstream candidates are planning to leave permanent bases with troops indefinitely.

AG: And what about the Iraqi leadership right now? What are they saying?

RJ: Now, the Iraqi leadership in the executive branch, which is a non-elected branch of the Iraqi government, are allied with the Bush administration. They are using the same terminology of the Bush administration. They're asking for a withdrawal, a partial withdrawal or withdrawal of what they call "combat troops," without really defining that. And they are OK with leaving permanent bases and U.S. troops in the long run that have immunity inside and outside the bases.

Now, the Iraqi leadership in the other branch of the government, the only elected branch, the parliament, actually is asking for a complete withdrawal. And these calls do reflect -- the calls for a complete withdrawal do reflect what the majority of Iraqis want. More than three-fourths of the Iraqi population are asking the U.S. to leave completely, not leave, you know, half and keep some tens of thousands of troops behind to do some extra missions.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: iraq, iraq war, barack obama, john mccain, iraq occupation, george w. bush, nouri al-maliki, iraq withdrawal, raed jarrar

Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program, Democracy Now!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Bush is simply following PNAC doctrine. And so will John McCain.
Posted by: VetAgainst McCain on Sep 12, 2008 1:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following information, which came from the Internet, is another reason for voting against Senator McCain:

Worthy of being called "America's Number One Neocon," McCain is a member (signatory) of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), a rightwing extremist organization formed in 1997 with the intent of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and dominating the world with U.S. military power.

Before joining the subversive PNAC cabal, Senator McCain was president of the New
Citizenship Project (NCP). Founded in 1994 by PNAC organizer Bill Kristol, NCP was
PNAC's parent and chief fundraising arm.

In 1998, McCain co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act. Drafted by PNAC officials, it
declared that regime change in Iraq should become U.S. foreign policy. To that end, the act appropriated $97 million in U.S. military aid for the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a group of anti-Hussein Iraqi militants determined to instigate a national uprising in Iraq.

In 2002, McCain was co-chair with Sen. Joe Lieberman of the White House-based Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI). Established by PNAC in 2002, CLI continued to finance INC with millions of taxpayer dollars until shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, when CLI was disbanded.

Fnally, in 2004, McCain officially became a PNAC member by signing a letter from Bill Kristol's organization hypocritically condemning Russian President Putin’s foreign policy for its return to the “rhetoric of militarism and empire.”


Have no doubt about it. If Manchurian Candidate McCain is elected in November, U.S. military adventurism will continue unabated in the Middle East with an attack against Iran happening sooner than later. On the bright side, he will leave Southeast Asia alone -- naturally!

Vet against McCain
To find out why, click on the links below
VietnamVeteransAgainstJohnMcCain.com
VoteVets.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:you say Posted by: solrev
light on brains, heavy on bombs
Posted by: blogoffanddie on Sep 12, 2008 3:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with the American populace is they still believe they are the good guys. They still view themselves as the cavalry, but they are in fact the hostile invaders, the belligerent occupiers and that which must be resisted.

In the last 40 years, the US has never been generous or magnanimous to any country unless there was some payoff or advantage for them somewhere along the line. Nothing is free or comes without a price where the US is concerned. Altruism in US foreign policy died years ago.

Sadly, John “the professional POW” McCain and Sarah “my god can beat up your god” Palin represent more of the same mindless Bush bullshit, light on brains, heavy on bombs.

"Make it a hundred.That would be fine with me."
John McCain (in reference to how many years US could be in Iraq).

http://blogoffanddie.wordpress.com

Vote McCain/Palin and build a bomb shelter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: light on brains, heavy on bombs Posted by: willd4change
But of course
Posted by: willd4change on Sep 12, 2008 4:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What did you expect to happen. The US is already in at least 175 countries around the world and the DOD uses about 400,000 barrels of oil a day. We need the Iraqi oil. President Carter said it best in 79 " WE WILL DO WHAT EVER IT TAKES TO SECURE OUR INTRESTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST" so what is our intrests? OIL, yes OIL, now that Russia has given bush and cheney a bitch slap in georgia one can only wonder what is in store for our country down the line. Neither party is making much sense at this point and all the Iraqi's can do is try to keep blocking what ever they can to oust the military. It pains me to see just how ignorant people are in this country when it comes to politics. Right now as we blog there is an aircraft carrier group parked of the coast of georgia just waiting to screw with the russians, cheney is probably on the bow having a titanic moment. I wish the iraqi's luck in their quest against the war machine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The next president can put an end to all this and so too could Congress.
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 12, 2008 5:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They really need to stop sucking up to Bush/Cheney and stand up to the war. More than White House, we need to R-E-P-A-I-R Congress and replace Bush rubberstamps and caveins with peace niks who will put public infrastructure over war first. This country is crumbling faster than Rome and the last thing we need is a near-war-draft. And maybe those rising gas prices right after the election might force some accountability. Hey, if it were not for rising gas prices, the US wouldn't have chosen diplomacy with Iran.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

8,000 Out...How Many In?
Posted by: Comfortably Yum on Sep 12, 2008 5:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The day they announced 8000 out in February of 2009, my 20 year old half sister called and says she ships out to Iraq in December of 2008. I said, "Afghanistan?" She said, "No, Iraq."
Why isn't this in the news?
She's also looking at McSame as her man. I have had no trouble reasoning with other people I know but this is my half sister who just found me two years ago. I hardly know her, yet I love her, I fear for her safety and have NO CLUE how to explain to her that her own support of McCain will only ENSURE more of the same.
Anyone know of any female vets groups that are vocal about McCain's true record?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BUSH DRUNK AT BEIJING OLYMPICS 2008
Posted by: Cesco8 on Sep 12, 2008 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did you know about this? I found it here with pics.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article157973.html

Sorry, it's in french, but as they say, pictures say a 1000 words.
AMAZING!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Americans are not well informed....
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Sep 12, 2008 8:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Americans depend on the US media for information, unfortunately, the media are now mostly corporate owned, and the focus is on the bottom line. The real issues in America whether it be Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, etc. are not being aired out and discussed! We have gotten so accustomed to "news as celebrity", and "reality t.v.", that we have forgotten our obligations to ourselves and future generations. As more and more needs to be hidden from the American people, less and less is really promulgated from the news about actual issues.

Over the last 30 years or so, there has been a back-lash against working people, and the scales have been tipped toward the rich and the corporate! Just pick an issue in any state and you will see that even if local media has covered the issue, the issue becomes framed into an us vs. them construct! That is really the saddest part in all of this.

Let's look at New Orleans, the levee's failed because funding has been slashed thru successive administrations, so now that the country is getting harder and stronger storms we get the massive failure that was Katrina and it's aftermath! If the country as a whole is unaware of the lack of funding and the impacts that accompany the aftermath, along with a dis-associated Executive, and a stagnant Congress those will be the results that show up. As Americans we all know in our hearts that something is wrong with our government - yet until a calamity happens in your neighborhood, than it is not your problem. It's that "rugged individualism" that gets tossed about when the right wants to stir up the population against an issue (think Hilary and healthcare)!

In Iraq and Afghanistan the only thing that the American public gets is pablum and maybe the count of wounded and dead, I wonder how content Americans would be if the situation were reversed. You know the rest of the world invaded America to get rid of GWB and his corporate backers! Americans would be up in arms - guns blazing and flags flying. We need to understand that which we should be teaching our children - we are not the world and we need to learn how to play well with others!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kirkuk-Mosul-Haifa oil pipeline
Posted by: muktuk on Sep 12, 2008 9:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
from Hareetz:
Last update - 09:26 17/06/2008


"U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan

By Amiram Cohen

Tags: Israel, U.S., Jordan, Haifa

The United States has asked Israel to check the possibility of pumping oil from Iraq to the oil refineries in Haifa. The request came in a telegram last week from a senior Pentagon official to a top Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem.

The Prime Minister's Office, which views the pipeline to Haifa as a "bonus" the U.S. could give to Israel in return for its unequivocal support for the American-led campaign in Iraq, had asked the Americans for the official telegram.

The new pipeline would take oil from the Kirkuk area, where some 40 percent of Iraqi oil is produced, and transport it via Mosul, and then across Jordan to Israel. The U.S. telegram included a request for a cost estimate for repairing the Mosul-Haifa pipeline that was in use prior to 1948. During the War of Independence, the Iraqis stopped the flow of oil to Haifa and the pipeline fell into disrepair over the years.

The National Infrastructure Ministry has recently conducted research indicating that construction of a 42-inch diameter pipeline between Kirkuk and Haifa would cost about $400,000 per kilometer. The old Mosul-Haifa pipeline was only 8 inches in diameter.

National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky said yesterday that the port of Haifa is an attractive destination for Iraqi oil and that he plans to discuss this matter with the U.S. secretary of energy during his planned visit to Washington next month. Paritzky added that the plan depends on Jordan's consent and that Jordan would receive a transit fee for allowing the oil to piped through its territory. The minister noted, however, that "due to pan-Arab concerns, it will be hard for the Jordanians to agree to the flow of Iraqi oil via Jordan and Israel."

Sources in Jerusalem confirmed yesterday that the Americans are looking into the possibility of laying a new pipeline via Jordan and Israel. (There is also a pipeline running via Syria that has not been used in some three decades.)

Iraqi oil is now being transported via Turkey to a small Mediterranean port near the Syrian border. The transit fee collected by Turkey is an important source of revenue for the country. This line has been damaged by sabotage twice in recent weeks and is presently out of service.

In response to rumors about the possible Kirkuk-Mosul-Haifa pipeline, Turkey has warned Israel that it would regard this development as a serious blow to Turkish-Israeli relations.

Sources in Jerusalem suggest that the American hints about the alternative pipeline are part of an attempt to apply pressure on Turkey.

Iraq is one of the world's largest oil producers, with the potential of reaching about 2.5 million barrels a day. Oil exports were halted after the Gulf War in 1991 and then were allowed again on a limited basis (1.5 million barrels per day) to finance the import of food and medicines. Iraq is currently exporting several hundred thousand barrels of oil per day.

During his visit to Washington in about two weeks, Paritzky also plans to discuss the possibility of U.S. and international assistance for joint Israeli-Palestinian projects in the areas of energy and infrastructure, natural gas, desalination and electricity"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NNedKelly
Posted by: NedKelly on Sep 12, 2008 12:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While the story tells us what many already believe, the person interviewed doesn't quote the supposedly leaked document, or say who wrote it or why we should believe it. While I trust Amy's intentions, it would be nice to also have the documentation for argument's sake.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Grassroots is the only answer---
Posted by: ProgGrandma on Sep 13, 2008 1:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does anyone remember a book called A Nation of Sheep--written some 45-50 years ago--I was too young to read it but the title stayed with me--we are certainly in the sitation today.

When people think that the MSM--even Fox News--is credible and don't care to dig any deeper into alternet.org and other sites like it--and are even sucked into the right-wing sites, then we have a long row to hoe.

The only way to overcome the corporate hold on our democracy is to defeat the very entities that control the media outlets and spin what they choose to put out there.

So what do we do? The only thing I can think of right is get moving at the grassroots level to get Obama/Biden and as many Democratic governors and congress members elected as we can. Wear those buttons, put on those bumper stickers, plant those signs in our yards and host Debate Watching Parties (see League of Women Voters website)--

Make those f2f contacts and tell our personal story about why we support these people. Reason and logic will not work--the personal contact just might--

What else can we do--except despair (a feeling I find myself fighting daily)--

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iraqis should demand Americans get out of their country
Posted by: Garvagh on Sep 14, 2008 3:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The neocon game plan (also subsribed to by Aipac) was always for permanent US bases to be kept in Iraq. This is the real reason the Bush administration refused the advice of the Iraq Study Group to engage with Iran and Syria to allow a smooth US military withdrawal. Israel will bankrupt the US, because protecting that country is costing hundreds of billions of American taxpayer dollars EVERY YEAR.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Father of Son Killed in Iraq Looks for the Truth
Posted by: darlajane on Sep 16, 2008 10:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John Scripsick, along with Warren and Kay Henthorn, stood outside a fundraiser with special guest George W. Bush. He was in Oklahoma City to raise money for McCain. Scripsick and the Henthorns considered it their patriotic responsibility to show up to ask questions of President Bush about his mishandling of the war that cost their son's lives. To read Scripsick's op ed go here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]